Would you sue?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But if there is even a remote chance that you will hit an innocent bystander, then NO, you do not take the shot.
Ask yourself this:
Is getting your wallet back worth killing an innocent bystander?

"Yep! I killed four children, three soccor moms, and two firefighters....but I got my wallet back!"
Click to expand...

That's what Sarah Bradys' bunch says. You may die if you don't shoot, but if there's a minute chance I'll be hit, you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.
 
Brad was CHASING the offender primarily to retrieve the wallet containing his mom's address, and the keys to her home. However, he did not FIRE at the moment in question until the man at the van, who had already shot him once and left him for dead, turned and raised his gun at him yet again.

Thoughts?
 
Tough one, but the fact remains, Brad should not have been chasing someone for a wallet, an address and keys. This may well have ended without further bloodshed had he stopped the chase.

Brad could have asked the cops to check on his mother after the commotion of the shooting and carjacking and it would have been unlikely that the perp went straight to Mom's house.

I get the feeling that Brad just wanted his wallet back. Buy hey, tough situation and I'm not saying I would have done things differently.
 
That's what Sarah Bradys' bunch says. You may die if you don't shoot, but if there's a minute chance I'll be hit, you shouldn't be able to defend yourself.
Click to expand...
Not in this senario....the GG was chasing the BG down the street.
There's a world of difference between shooting at someone who is actively shooting at you, and shooting at a fleeing criminal.
The GG could have just stopped and called the police to check on his mother at his home.
 
You seem to be expecting this to change something. Brad chases this guy after the initial threat was over, which was not reasonable. Supposedly, the reason for the chase was because the robber had keys to Brad's mother's house. His mother was not in the zone of danger, Brad could call police and change locks, etc., any threat to his mother was remote and theoretical at that point. Brad then chases the BG toward our innocent in the van, who otherwise may have never come into contact with the BG. Brad, through his actions, drove the danger to the van driver, placing him in jeopardy. He then corners the BG between himself and his gun and our poor, innocent, heretofore uninvolved, van driver. The BG points his gun at the guy chasing him with a gun (our Brad). Brad may now have had a private necessity to shoot, but how that means that our guy in the van should pay for it I don't know. Instead of shooting the BG he shoots wildly whizzing one into the van driver, who he had already placed in danger by chasing the BG to his door. I'm not sure if you think the driver should suck it up and take one for the cosmic good or what. Brad was blameless for being a victim, but he was responsible for creating the danger our van driver was in and then harmed him by negligently placing a bullet in him. Should the van driver be happy with his wheel chair and starving kids so that Brad's insurance company could post a slightly higher profit. That's one heck of a lot to expect from anybody.

Brad was CHASING the offender primarily to retrieve the wallet containing his mom's address, and the keys to her home. However, he did not FIRE at the moment in question until the man at the van, who had already shot him once and left him for dead, turned and raised his gun at him yet again.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
I believe MA's point in stressing that the GG didn't shoot until the BG raised a gun in his direction was to highlight the reasonable quality of retruning fire.

One of the other ideas basic to tort law is that a man should be liable for harm he could reasonably foresee. Do you think it is reasonably foreseeable that chasing a mugger would result in harm to others?
 
The comment contradicting a fair description of the purpose of tort law was wide of the mark. Anyone can misread. Happens to the best of us.
Click to expand...

It usually happens to guys like me who are just too impatient to read what we should read. :D There are a couple of different factual situations being described. Sorry about that, I'm getting confused! :)

Regardless, if you're gonna shoot in defense of another, you'd better be darn sure to hit what you shoot at, and to not hit an innocent bystander. If you do hit an innocent bystander, you'll probably get sued. The facts make all the difference in whether a judgment is entered against you, as well as the amount of the judgment. That transferred intent deal is a heck of a legal fiction. The law can be an ass. :o

In some states, I wouldn't be surprised if you were sued by the BG after you shot an innocent bystander -- intentional (or negligent) infliction of emotional distress....:D
 
One of the other ideas basic to tort law is that a man should be liable for harm he could reasonably foresee. Do you think it is reasonably foreseeable that chasing a mugger would result in harm to others?
Click to expand...

Chasing on foot? Not so much. Firing at the mugger he was chasing? YES. While he may not have foreseen that there would be harm to others as a direct result of his actions, he had to know that there would be the risk of harm to others and in knowing that there is a risk, he would have foreseen the potential for his actions harming others.
 
I believe MA's point in stressing that the GG didn't shoot until the BG raised a gun in his direction was to highlight the reasonable quality of retruning fire.
Click to expand...

Lets take this from a legal stand point. If the good guy was robbed and then pursued the bad guy and shot him, would it be considered a justifiable shoot? I don't believe so since lethal force is being used to protect (retrieve) property rather than "the prevention of death or grave bodily injury". Those are the requirements place by the state of Florida on the use of deadly force.

So the good guy pursues the bad guy and shots are exchanged. Would the bystander have been hit if the good guy did not pursue him? Was the good guy's mother in imminent danger at the time? I believe that is a major stretch at best. The good guy's actions should have been to call the police and report the incident and be the best witness possible. He then should have called his mother and told her to leave the house until the locks could be changed.

As an innocent bystander, I still have bills to pay. I will still go through pain and suffering. Am I going to just eat the medical bills and lose wages because someone was protecting PROPERTY??? Can the good guy prove that he was acting on my behalf to prevent me being car jacked? Can he prove that I would have been killed had he not intervened? I'm almost certain he was after his wallet and I'm going to hold him liable for my injuries.

This bring up an interesting twist though... What if you are shot (by accident) by a good samaritan trying to help you out? Say a woman is either being kidnapped or about to be raped and a good samaritan interrupts the bad guy. The bad guy points a gun at the good samaritan and shots are fired. The woman is hit by the shots. In this case, I don't believe the woman should sue since the good samaritan probably saved her from getting kidnapped, raped, and/or murdered.
 
This was posted in response to another thread:

"IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against
another person to protect the person or a third person from what the
person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to
prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the
commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be
placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the
person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

Does the above statute prevent the van driver from sueing the GG or is that just for criminal charges? If just for criminal charges, what prevents the BG from sueing for damages received from a legal use of force for (self-)defense?
 
it's really a scenario that needs to be examined in a courtroom, or something similar. the story leads one to assume brad as facing the driver's side of the van and that the bg was standing outside the driver's side door. what if brad was facing the passenger side of the van and actually fired through the van, hoping to miss the bystander? what if the bg deliberately used the bystander as a shield? is it a correct action to return fire then? or to take a pre-emptive shot because the bg raised his weapon to fire? i'm just saying, where are the lines drawn between good samaritan and being irresponsible in such a situation?
 
This is an Indiana criminal statute concerning defenses. Remember, everything hangs on reasonable. It would not be directly applicable to civil torts.


You should have included this part of the statute:

(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

(e)(1) clearly applies to the BG, he's excluded from protection
(e)(2) and (e)(3) may apply to our GG, he may be excluded from protection
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, you start chasing an armed mugger, while you're waving a gun, and I think it's not only foreseeable, but probable that someone, including third parties are going to be hurt or killed. This wasn't softball they were playing

I believe MA's point in stressing that the GG didn't shoot until the BG raised a gun in his direction was to highlight the reasonable quality of retruning fire.

One of the other ideas basic to tort law is that a man should be liable for harm he could reasonably foresee. Do you think it is reasonably foreseeable that chasing a mugger would result in harm to others?
Click to expand...
 
What about a slightly different scenario? The shooter is in his house/apartment and is the victim of an armed home invasion. Lets say for the sake of arguement that he hits the BG but the bullet goes through him and the wall and hits you. What then??
 
Though they were not mentioned, there could be some mitigating factors here too. If Brad had heard or read news accounts of hold-up victims returning home to find they'd been burglarized shortly after a robbery, then he would have legitimate concerns about the safety of his bedridden mother (unable to leave without assistance).

The foot pursuit of a felon, of itself, should not lead to charges of endangering the public or injury to bystanders unless directly caused by the GG (i.e. pushing someone down).

If the van appears from a cross street and the BG runs to the front door, it puts the van operator (VO) in the line of fire. This depends on distance between Brad & the BG plus where Brad fired from in relationship to the van.
 
Do you sue or does your RKBA nucleus in your noggin say that you should NOT sue for the cause? Do you eat the costs and disability even though one could argue that the GG should not have pursued even though the BG got 'what he deserved' and it showed that we stand up to crime, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would sue. The shooter is liable for every shot they fire. The GG chased the BG and fired shots, even though the BG no longer posed a threat. Obviously, with the BG running, if he was to be shot, it would be in the back. If you were hit, as a result of reckless behavior by the GG, and severely injured, then yes, you should sue. I have a feeling any sensible jury would agree.
The prosecutor would paint a picture of the GG as being reckless and needlessly endangering peoples lives. The BG was running and being shot at, and in the process you were hit. The prosecutor would say that it is the job of the police to investigate and arrest criminals, not the job of the "average joe" to gun down criminals like it's the wild west.
I don't agree with all of that, but that is likely what would happen. If you were seriously injured, medical bills would mount quickly. If you were disabled, unable to work, and had a family to support, that leaves you in a very bad position. How else, if unable to work, would you support your family, let alone try to pay the extremely high cost of medical care these days?
 
All these "if" scenarios . . .

If . . . if . . . if . . . if. . . . if

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't whomp his ass everytime he jumped.

Jeff
 
I think alligator94 and BillCA may be looking at this through the lens of criminal rather than civil liability. Having some perceived necessity for use of force, even if reasonable, does not give you the privilege of using everyone else in the world as your backstop. Civil liability would still attach, though I don't see any criminal issue for the GG. Whenever you choose to use a gun for self-defense, you can reasonably foresee that any shot you fire that does not reach its intended target is going to reach an unintended target which may be an otherwise uninvolved third party.
 
i would sue both the good guy and bad guy.....there is no reason that i live my life crippled or paralyzed because he has crappy aim......


would i feel bad about suing him? yes without a doubt, hopefully he feels bad for shooting me, if i was the shooter i would pick up the tab of the innocent that i hit....
 
Change the whole scenario. You are on the second floor of a gun friendly mall that welcomes legal carrying and see a gunman standing at the rail firing down on the people on the first floor not paying attention to anyone on the second floor. GG on the other side of the BG, on the second floor pulls out his Glock and starts emptying it toward the BG. Of the 17 rounds 2 hit the BG, non-mortal, and the other 15 hit innocent by-standers on the crowded second floor including you. You pull out your XD, one head shot, the excitement is over and the BG is dead. However you are now paralyzed from the waist down. Do you sue and who?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top